AIM:To compare the costs and effectiveness of no screening and no eradication therapy, the population- based Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) serology screening with eradication therapy and 13C-Urea breath test (UBT) wi...AIM:To compare the costs and effectiveness of no screening and no eradication therapy, the population- based Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) serology screening with eradication therapy and 13C-Urea breath test (UBT) with eradication therapy. METHODS:A Markov model simulation was carried out in all 237 900 Chinese males with age between 35 and 44 from the perspective of the public healthcare provider in Singapore. The main outcome measures were the costs, number of gastric cancer cases prevented, life years saved, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from screening age to death. The uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness ratio was addressed by one-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Compared to no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $16 166 per life year saved or $13 571 per QALY gained for the serology screening, and $38 792 per life year saved and $32 525 per QALY gained for the UBT. The ICER was $477 079 per life year saved or $390 337 per QALY gained for the UBT compared to the serology screening. The cost- effectiveness of serology screening over the UBT was robust to most parameters in the model. CONCLUSION:The population-based serologyscreening for H pylori was more cost-effective than the UBT in prevention of gastric cancer in Singapore Chinese males.展开更多
There is a need for cost-efficient methods in consumer research. Existing qualitative methods are expensive to conduct. This paper aims to improve the focus group method. The objective was to improve focus groups with...There is a need for cost-efficient methods in consumer research. Existing qualitative methods are expensive to conduct. This paper aims to improve the focus group method. The objective was to improve focus groups with different aims： shorter time conducting interviews, interview greater number of respondents, deliver results faster than traditionally analysis of data, and lower total cost. CurroCus groups of 15-45 minutes duration were tested in five different experiments, including 70 to 160 respondents in groups of 7-11 respondents. The name of the new method is formed from the word ＂Curro＂ in Latin that means speed in English, and ＂Cus＂ that is the last syllable of the word ＂focus＂, thereby forming a new word： CurroCus~ on the method. The results from testing of the CurroCus~ group method at different cases showed that trained moderators and observers could collect relevant responses in a given time for each group. It was possible to process a number of 6 to 10 respondents for each group. By conducting several successive groups, saturation of information was reached after an adequate number of CurroCus~ groups. Therefore, the total number of respondents can be optimized and results can be more precise, with reduced risk of inaccuracy. At the same time, the cost for each case can be lowered substantially, in our cases to approximately 1/10 of a traditional focus group cost. The role （skills） of the moderator is important. A disadvantage is the risk that some of the respondents are not able to express their thoughts in due time when time is limited. There is a need for more research on all parts of the CurroCus group process.展开更多
文摘AIM:To compare the costs and effectiveness of no screening and no eradication therapy, the population- based Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) serology screening with eradication therapy and 13C-Urea breath test (UBT) with eradication therapy. METHODS:A Markov model simulation was carried out in all 237 900 Chinese males with age between 35 and 44 from the perspective of the public healthcare provider in Singapore. The main outcome measures were the costs, number of gastric cancer cases prevented, life years saved, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from screening age to death. The uncertainty surrounding the cost-effectiveness ratio was addressed by one-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:Compared to no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $16 166 per life year saved or $13 571 per QALY gained for the serology screening, and $38 792 per life year saved and $32 525 per QALY gained for the UBT. The ICER was $477 079 per life year saved or $390 337 per QALY gained for the UBT compared to the serology screening. The cost- effectiveness of serology screening over the UBT was robust to most parameters in the model. CONCLUSION:The population-based serologyscreening for H pylori was more cost-effective than the UBT in prevention of gastric cancer in Singapore Chinese males.
文摘There is a need for cost-efficient methods in consumer research. Existing qualitative methods are expensive to conduct. This paper aims to improve the focus group method. The objective was to improve focus groups with different aims： shorter time conducting interviews, interview greater number of respondents, deliver results faster than traditionally analysis of data, and lower total cost. CurroCus groups of 15-45 minutes duration were tested in five different experiments, including 70 to 160 respondents in groups of 7-11 respondents. The name of the new method is formed from the word ＂Curro＂ in Latin that means speed in English, and ＂Cus＂ that is the last syllable of the word ＂focus＂, thereby forming a new word： CurroCus~ on the method. The results from testing of the CurroCus~ group method at different cases showed that trained moderators and observers could collect relevant responses in a given time for each group. It was possible to process a number of 6 to 10 respondents for each group. By conducting several successive groups, saturation of information was reached after an adequate number of CurroCus~ groups. Therefore, the total number of respondents can be optimized and results can be more precise, with reduced risk of inaccuracy. At the same time, the cost for each case can be lowered substantially, in our cases to approximately 1/10 of a traditional focus group cost. The role （skills） of the moderator is important. A disadvantage is the risk that some of the respondents are not able to express their thoughts in due time when time is limited. There is a need for more research on all parts of the CurroCus group process.
